Evolution is Dead | Questions that make you think... | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Evolution is Dead
Avatar
CodeBlackv2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 417
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
September 26, 2010 - 4:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Scientists have discovered that the rate of evolution is linked to the number of children a woman has in her lifetime. If a woman has only 1 child, that child is most like the parents. That's why parents always love the firstborn the most. It has the least number of changes. Likewise, if a woman has many children, the later children are the least like their parents. They have the most changes.

This makes sense from an intelligent mother nature perspective. If humans are having only a few children then they are needed to continue the species. Nature can't afford the risk of making changes as each change from the parents brings the risk that it may produce a non-beneficial or even non-viable offspring.

The theoretical maximum number of children a woman can have, not counting multiples, is about 13. A century ago, women were having just that many. But today, women are having only a few children, or none at all. This has led to the end of evolution for the human race. The motivations for having so few children are several, economics, politics, social. But it will lead to the stagnation of the human race and its civilizations. End of the line.

There is a flip side to this coin. You also need to clean up the species. Otherwise, you end up with too many offspring that are not beneficial to the species, and you over-populate the planet, which is where we are now.

Nature does NOT decide who lives and who dies. Nature simply keeps raising the obstacles and the most successful are able to climb over. Those that can't, do not survive. Is that not exactly what happened to life on earth in the past? Small creatures survived the KT period, large ones did not. Humans survived because they were able to hide in caves during ice ages.

So what is the solution? We certainly don't want to make the mistakes of history, eugenics for example, or Nazism (murdering everyone you don't like). But there has to be a "solution" if you'll excuse the expression. We obviously want to keep the societal inventions we've created, like freedom, individual rights, etc. Plus, whatever we institute must actually be correct. One person's idea of "beneficial" is likely to be flawed, as history shows.

Is the answer, space exploration? The Moon, Mars, Moons of Jupiter and Saturn, beyond? We can't just keep adding more to the population of the earth. How will we survive?

Avatar
Lightwolf
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 117
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
101275
April 11, 2012 - 12:18 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

My reply is short
Evolution is NOT dead...the proof is in the question...
there can be no evolution if there are no questions

Lightwolf

When I die...I want to go peacefully in my sleep...like my Grandfather did...not screaming like the passengers in his car.

Avatar
bionic
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9877
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102001
April 24, 2012 - 5:21 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

evolution has more to do with adpatation..those that can.. adpat to their environment..they sruvive..so their genes get passed on..over time this mixes and matches..varaints pop up..if those variants turn out to be something that helps oen to adpat and survive and pass on their dna..then they are added to the mix..this is evolution..it is mostly..a slow process

Willie Wonka quotes..
What is this Wonka, some kind of funhouse?
Why? Are you having fun?
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
We are the music makers, we are the dreamers of dreams

Avatar
CodeBlackv2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 417
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102120
April 25, 2012 - 8:38 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm not sure that evolution is a slow process. I tend to reject that because if you tie evolution to "response to environmental change" then you have to consider how we adapted when there were rapid changes to the environment in the past, like the desertification of the North African plains, which happened rapidly. Some ice ages happened quickly too, and the changes from volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes caused very rapid changes as well.

In the coming century over-population will cause rapid environmental changes. How will Humans adapt to that?

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10055
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
102292
April 27, 2012 - 8:57 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"CodeBlackv2" wrote: Scientists have discovered that the rate of evolution is linked to the number of children a woman has in her lifetime. If a woman has only 1 child, that child is most like the parents. That's why parents always love the firstborn the most. It has the least number of changes. Likewise, if a woman has many children, the later children are the least like their parents. They have the most changes.

This makes sense from an intelligent mother nature perspective. If humans are having only a few children then they are needed to continue the species. Nature can't afford the risk of making changes as each change from the parents brings the risk that it may produce a non-beneficial or even non-viable offspring.

The theoretical maximum number of children a woman can have, not counting multiples, is about 13. A century ago, women were having just that many. But today, women are having only a few children, or none at all. This has led to the end of evolution for the human race. The motivations for having so few children are several, economics, politics, social. But it will lead to the stagnation of the human race and its civilizations. End of the line.

There is a flip side to this coin. You also need to clean up the species. Otherwise, you end up with too many offspring that are not beneficial to the species, and you over-populate the planet, which is where we are now.

Nature does NOT decide who lives and who dies. Nature simply keeps raising the obstacles and the most successful are able to climb over. Those that can't, do not survive. Is that not exactly what happened to life on earth in the past? Small creatures survived the KT period, large ones did not. Humans survived because they were able to hide in caves during ice ages.

So what is the solution? We certainly don't want to make the mistakes of history, eugenics for example, or Nazism (murdering everyone you don't like). But there has to be a "solution" if you'll excuse the expression. We obviously want to keep the societal inventions we've created, like freedom, individual rights, etc. Plus, whatever we institute must actually be correct. One person's idea of "beneficial" is likely to be flawed, as history shows.

Is the answer, space exploration? The Moon, Mars, Moons of Jupiter and Saturn, beyond? We can't just keep adding more to the population of the earth. How will we survive?

I think the opening statement is totally untrue. If the same parents have 1 or 10 children, that does not change their genetic make up as the parents. I do not know where you have the idea the first is loved more than the last, or that evolution of man as a whole is impacted by a woman have several children. If you have 10 siblings, they all take on different family orders, but that is a typical family sturcture that occurs due to age, pecking order, roles, that have nothing to do with genetics. Parents certainly do not love their last less than their first, unless they are disfunctional. We are certainly evolving now, becasue in my lifetime what use to be a taboo thing was interracial marriage, and today it is common. Changing and depleting food sourse probably have a role in our evolution. Humans have grown in total height, and probably total weight, as we are not an active people, we are adapting to a pretty soft life. Just compare us to a few hundreds years ago. We are also evolving in an age of pollution that did not exist,and have entered our genetics . Nuclear accidents, chemicals, have killed off thousands animal species, humans have to be affected as well. We are evolving technologically, and living longer, and developed artifical ways of extending life. Humans are evolving, and in a few hundred years, all the races may blend into one with interracial marriages. Hopefully humans will not encounter what much of our animal world has. The lack of ability to reproduce and flurish. We live in a delicate ecosystem, where a few degree difference in ave. temp may spell total extinction. It is said when the honey bee goes extinct, man can not survive, the pollination of food sourse will cease, and with out food will come fhamon and starvation. We are fishing out the oceans, altering rain forests, and the polar ice caps are receeding at alarming rates. The high elevation grasses that were from the Mayan event 5200 years ago are now just exposed, noting conditions are at the same point. Yes we are evolving, and it may not be for the good.

Avatar
CodeBlackv2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 417
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
103005
May 7, 2012 - 6:50 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

The part about parents loving their firstborn more than their other children was something I added but there is plenty of historical, and anecdotal, evidence that it is correct. Just as example, Egyptian society physically ranked children in order of birth and the first born male slept next to the parents, the younger children slept on the roof. The feudal system inheritance rules were based on this as well. Most societies honored the firstborn above the others and this was a natural offshoot of what I mentioned above.

The part about the firstborn being more like the parents than the latter born children is fact. And the genes in children are not exact duplicates of the parents, common mistake. There are mutations. The number of mutations generally increases with the number of offspring. We've found that DNA is quite malleable.

Societal and environmental changes are no indication of genetic evolution. Global Warming does not mean that humans are evolving.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense that nature would apply fewer changes if only a few children were being born to each mother because it indicates that these children are needed for the continuance of the species. If a woman has 13 children then nature is free to take more risks. If there are fewer children then there is less variation possible. Pretty simple.

In the end it probably won't matter too much since humans are going to exhaust the resources on Earth, and when that happens, billions will die, and the Human race will go through another genetic bottleneck, which it has done in the past. Nature is balance. The question is, which will happen first, resource exhaustion or the complete blending of the races? Ask the Neanderthals.

[offtopic]In Feudal Europe it was common for cousins to marry, and that was probably because people who were royal (wealthy and successful) thought they possessed better genes (they called it "breeding" since they could only suspect something like DNA). If you think your genes are better than others' then you might want to hold on to those genes. We place value judgements on them today based on modern scientific knowledge that inbreeding is bad, but they did not know that. I always laugh at people who accuse them of inbreeding because every family is filled with it. Its just that no one thought they were important enough for it to be recorded.[/offtopic]

Avatar
greeney2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 10055
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
103011
May 7, 2012 - 8:34 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

I'm not too sure about the threory the genetic make of the parnets changes, but its pretty obvious the phyical condition of the Mother does with each birth.

Avatar
CodeBlackv2
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 417
Member Since:
July 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
103153
May 11, 2012 - 1:16 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

The DNA copying process is not perfect. Many K-12 science books, including the ones I grew up with, state that a fertilized egg's DNA is an exact copy of the father and mother. But if that were true then there'd be almost no evolution. And actually your DNA changes throughout your life. It just doesn't change very much. In fact, some allergic reactions of the body are manifested by changes in genes. Every time a cell replicates its another copy operation that can go wrong. Amazing that it works as well as it does.

Avatar
Myzanthros
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 14
Member Since:
February 8, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
118931
February 9, 2015 - 6:51 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Evolution is an automatic process that never ends, period.

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online: JixxmyncHH
19 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10055

bionic: 9877

at1with0: 9242

Lashmar: 5757

tigger: 4576

rath: 4332

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3283

Newest Members:

JefferybekHF

WalterWatDI

uxitaxu

ClintonpekNQ

AnitaPrumsOV

Jesse Yishay Alexander

etewipahu

ucopame

ArucenusZP

AquaSateHG

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8197

Posts: 121614

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 20603

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Administrators: John Greenewald, blackvault